(October 11, 2012 at 8:42 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: I'd like to ask a question. Not challenge, but question.

Scientists believe in all manner of entities that cannot be directly perceived: protons, electrons, quarks, bosons, black holes, nuclear forces, etc. They believe in these things because they help them understand natural phenomenon which they do perceive. Correct?

no

All the things you mentioned have been directly observed.

Quote:Now all you have to do is demonstrate the same level of observational evidence for a god

I can't wait for that.

This is just my personal take on things as a rogue philosopher, so understand it as my view and my view only.

Scientists, at least those worthy of the name, do not believe in the existence of protons, sub-atomic particles, gravity, quantum waves or anything of the sort. Scientists do believe that they have mathematical and philosophical models, ranging from Maxwell's equations to tenets of the theory of measurement which have demonstrated themselves consistent with macroscopic observables (though those observables, many, were in turn dependent on earlier 'so-called' observations). These mathematical models, when connected up together so that all the undefined terms link up with definitions, are consistent with observed behavior of macroscopic objects. A scientist using a tunneling electron microscope to probe a large, complex molecule, is not physically looking at the molecule, she is looking at a buttload of theories and mathematical models, many of which are solely dedicated to explaining the macroscopic behavior of the tunneling electron microscope itself, which allows her to establish some credibility to the notion that the mathematics of what she is "seeing" is consistent with, and interpretable in light of these other mathematical models. We don't care whether there are actual protons, or if they are incredibly tiny Justin Bieber clones doing dances — we care that the overall interlocking set of mathematical models is consistent and that there is a reasonable expectation that we can make further inferences about observations, such as what she is "seeing" in the tunneling electron microscope, that are justifiably reasonable given macroscopic observation (such as, of the LCD screen of the microscope) and that our prior work in developing and verifying the consistency of the models that the observation is built upon justifies such inference. It doesn't matter if there is everything or nothing at bottom, so long as it is consistent with and predictable at the macroscopic level by our mathematical models.

This is a common mistake people make in reference to quantum physics. People argue about the implications of the Copenhagen interpretation versus Many Worlds versus Decoherence. These are "interpretations" of the theory — attempts to paint a suitably robust metaphysical picture of what is there at the bottom. These interpretations are the "Bohr's model of the atom" of our day. They don't refer to reality as such, so much as a picture of what might be an ontologically tangible model of why the equations do what they do. Perhaps one can think of it as a meta-theory of the theory. The theory is the equations. The rest is just philosophical falderal.

(October 11, 2012 at 8:42 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: I'd like to ask a question. Not challenge, but question.

Scientists believe in all manner of entities that cannot be directly perceived: protons, electrons, quarks, bosons, black holes, nuclear forces, etc. They believe in these things because they help them understand natural phenomenon which they do perceive. Correct?

If the definition of 'believe' you are using is 'the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true', then yes, by that definition scientists believe they exist. If you are using 'confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof' as your definition, then no, they don't believe they exist.

As others have stated, the things you claim scientists 'believe in' (protons, electrons, quarks, bosons, black holes, nuclear forces, etc.) have been observed, either directly or indirectly. They also all have beautiful and coherent math that describe them.

Quote:But God isn't one of those things that scientists can believe in because... why?

First of all, about 30% of all scientists do believe in a god.

But those that that don't believe in a god most likely apply the same method to the claim that a god exists as they do to other claims concerning the nature of the universe, the requirement that the claim be supported by; demonstrable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence and reasoned argument.

Without any of the above, what should their justification be to believe a god exists?

Quote:Is it that God doesn't help them understand anything that they're perceiving? What are the respective intellectual advantages and disadvantages of believing in things like protons versus believing in god, or gods or intelligent design or a universal intelligence or something like that?

There is nothing that has been observed in the universe (including its existence) that requires a god. There is zero need to evoke the existence of a god to explain anything.

The intellectual advantage of believing in protons is that they help explain reality. There are no disadvantages, as far as I can tell. The disadvantage of believing in gods and intelligent design is that they have zero explanatory power.

(October 16, 2012 at 8:07 pm)Brunitski Wrote:

(October 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Now all you have to do is demonstrate the same level of observational evidence for a god, indirect or otherwise. In other words, show that a god has any effect at all on the Universe, however slight. And just to forestall a common creationist card from being played, it's no use appealing to the god-thing's ability to exist apart from the Universe, or to be of the Universe rather than in it. That boat has already sailed and been torpedoed... there were no survivors.

Again, well said.

Especially the torpedo analogy.

Needless to say, I agree with the honourable members above.

We have pictures of atoms. We have pictures of trails for known subatomic particles. We have pictures of trails for uknown subatomic particles.

Whatchu got?

Show us yours and we will show you ours.